W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2009

[widgets] Minutes from 22 January 2009 Voice Conference

From: Arthur Barstow <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:25:59 -0500
Message-Id: <2E0532FA-79B5-4D81-9C9C-672AEC980675@nokia.com>
To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>

The minutes from the January 22 Widgets voice conference are  
available at the following and copied below:


WG Members - if you have any comments, corrections, etc., please send  
them to the public-webapps mail list before 29 January 2009 (the next  
Widgets voice conference); otherwise these minutes will be considered  

-Regards, Art Barstow


       [1] http://www.w3.org/

                                - DRAFT -

                        Widgets Voice Conference

22 Jan 2009


       [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    See also: [3]IRC log

       [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/01/22-wam-irc


           Art, Mark, Marcos, Jere, David, Bryan, Claudio, Arve, Josh,
           Andy, Benoit

           Frederick, Thomas




      * [4]Topics
          1. [5]Review and tweak agenda
          2. [6]Annoucements
          3. [7]P&C LCWD comments from Boris
          4. [8]P&C LCWD Comments from Benoit
          5. [9]P&C LCWD Comments from Mark
          6. [10]API and Events spec: getting to FPWD:
          7. [11]Add tag: scheme to our list of schemes that do not meet
             our requirements.
          8. [12]AOB
      * [13]Summary of Action Items

    Date: 22 January 2009

    <scribe> ScribeNick: ArtB

    <scribe> Scribe: Art

Review and tweak agenda

    AB: want to add Boris' comments on P&C LC
    ... Any objections to that addition?


    AB: I gave Frederick and Thomas a headsup that we are not likely to
    get to DigSig to focus on P&C LC
    ... any other change requests?



    AB: Jan 31 is the deadline for P&C LC comments

    MC: I will change affiliations on Feb 15, working for Opera

    AB: good luck in your PhD defense next week, Marcos
    ... any other annoucements?


P&C LCWD comments from Boris

    AB: MC's reply to Boris is
    ... do we have any major issues or show stoppers, Marcos?

      [14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: not really
    ... but one reoccuring theme re file to mime type mapping
    ... I added a new rule for whitespace handling
    ... I wrote a whitespace normalization

    <marcos> ...and remove whitespace removal rules

    AB: is that it for Boris' comments on this VC?

    MC: yes; I will do some more followup

P&C LCWD Comments from Benoit

    AB: Benoit's comments
    ... Mostly non-contentious; comment about window mode we will
    discuss later when we cover Mark's comments
    ... Marcos' proposes we drop plugin attribute (of <access> element);
    any comments on that proposal?
    ... see:

      [15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 
      [16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: I think it is to ambigous re what the plugin is
    ... for example there could be natively installed plugins
    ... I think it should be left as an impl detail

    Arve: I'm not so sure
    ... the problem isn't really with plugins themselves
    ... the problem is 3rd party code running within the widget and
    security implications thereof
    ... But given we don't have a well-defined security model, this
    could be considered a moot point
    ... I do agree that plugin attribute may not be the appropriate word

    MC: in a web browser, a plugin will run if it is installed;
    otherwise it won't

    JS: just because Flahs is installed, doesn't mean it will run
    because it could be dis-abled
    ... So the simple solution given no sec model, is indeed that we
    don't specify plugin

    BS: want to know if an additional player is needed
    ... e.g. audio player

    Arve: one thing to consider is the API e.g. a feature requirement

    AB: I propose we stop discussion now and follow-up on the mail list
    ... any objections?

    <timeless> no

    Arve: no, seems reasonable

    AB: are there other parts of Benoit's comments we want to discuss

    BS: most of my comments were Editorial except for the modes stuff
    ... Default size is another issue we need to discuss

    MC: we need to think in terms of CSS pixels i.e. they scale

    BS: I will submit a proposal to the list
    ... I still need to check a few of Marcos' followups

P&C LCWD Comments from Mark

    AB: some of Mark's comments apply to API & Events spec:
    ... There has already been some follow-up discussions on
    public-webapps by Arve
    ... propose we start with Window Modes
    ... LC identifies 4 window modes: application, floating, fullscreen,
    ... But clearly states this feature is at risk

      [17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    BS: I proposed some wording changes i.e. their meaning
    ... in some case size is relevant

    Arve: there are other facets to consider e.g. can the widget be
    ... others are can it occupy full screen

    MP: there is a diff between floating and big/small

    BS: Dashboard default is floating
    ... but Vista default is different
    ... want the developer to decide

    <arve> Opera's internal definition of 'floating' (Named widget:
    widget: The widget is typically rendered without user chrome, and
    the widget is assumed to have control over its own window size.)

    MP: we need to define behavior too

    <arve> And 'application': application: The widget is assumed to be
    rendered in a viewport size determined by the widget engine,
    optionally using the initial rendering dimensions specified in
    config.xml as a suggestion. Further, where applicable, the widget
    engine should also render application chrome. A widget
    implementation may render several widgets onscreen in this mode.

    AB: Marcos, what are the relevant requirements here?

    MC: I don't think we have any

    AB: perhaps that's why we keep talking past each other
    ... I think we need clear reqs before we try to specify something
    ... is anyone willing to take an Action to create requirements?

    MP: I'm willing to do that

    <scribe> ACTION: Mark create an input regarding Window Mode
    requirements [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-291 - Create an input regarding Window
    Mode requirements [on Mark Priestley - due 2009-01-29].

    MP: this is real important and I'd like to get it resolved ASAP

    AB: any volunteers to help?

    BS: me

    MC: me too

    Arve: l would like these req discussions to take place on the mail
    ... we have some impl experience that are relevant so I want to

    MP: we will base the reqs on our work
    ... we will be happy to take suggestions for improvements

    AB: I second Arve's proposal to do these discussions on
    ... Mark, any other comments besides window modes?

    MP: most of our comments were about window mode including related

    Arve: the CSS extensions are a different topic
    ... I think CSS WG may have some issues with the proposal

    AB: what are the specific concerns?

    Arve: a concern is that we will specify CSS behavior
    ... docking mode in particular

    AB: if we need to directly engage with CSS WG, Mike or I can make
    that happen
    ... it may be a bit premature given we need to think about this from
    the reqs level first

    CV: we don't want to overlap CSS work

    Arve: I meant we don't want to specify something around Media
    ... It's more like a philosophical concern re us being consistent
    with CSS' specs

    AB: if we indeed specify any CSS related stuff, we indeed must work
    with the CSS WG

    Arve: after we agree on reqs, and then do the spec work, we'll know
    if we need to work with CSS WG

    AB: agree

    MP: we will submit other comments

API and Events spec: getting to FPWD:

    AB: ED is <[19]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/>

      [19] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/%3E

    <arve> [20]http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

      [20] http://dev.w3.org/2006/waf/widgets-api/

    AB: Arve, what is the status of your January 15 action "it appears I
    have not checked in agreed changes from Mandelieu. I will check in
    all changes before our next Voice Conf".

    Arve: that should be done now
    ... we still need a definition for Widget Context
    ... still have some Red Blocks

    AB: I think we need some text in Section 1.
    ... is 1.1 boilerplate?

    MC: yes

    <scribe> ACTION: Marcos write an introduction for section 1. of the
    API and Events spec [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-292 - Write an introduction for section 1.
    of the API and Events spec [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-01-29].

    AB: what do we need to do to publish FPWD?
    ... after Marcos supplies text for 1.0, are you ready to publish it?

    Arve: yes

    MC: I will try to complete that by early next week

    AB: any other comments on FPWD?

    JK: comment on section 4; needs some formatting work

    Arve: oh, you're right; I'll fix that

    <arve> "When the view state of the widget changes, the
    widgetmodechange event is dispatched on the Widget object. It must
    not bubble, must not be cancelable and must implement the Event
    interface [DOM3Events]. The event has no namespace
    (Event.namespaceURI is null"

    AB: we could start a 1-week CfC

    JS: I will submit comments

    AB: a FPWD can be pretty raw i.e. published knowing there are lots
    of open issues
    ... please review the latest ED and be ready on Jan 29 to vote Yes
    or No for a FPWD

Add tag: scheme to our list of schemes that do not meet our

    AB: scheme document is
    ... I propose we add tag: scheme to the document Marcos created last

      [22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webapps/ 

    MC: I can do that but the interesting discussions will occur on the

    AB: I think consolidating the rationale will be useful

    MC: agree, assign me a action

    <scribe> ACTION: Marcos add the tag: scheme to the scheme pros and
    cons document [recorded in

    <trackbot> Created ACTION-293 - Add the tag: scheme to the scheme
    pros and cons document [on Marcos Caceres - due 2009-01-29].

    MC: I can create a PDF is that's what people want

    Arve: yes, please do

    <arve> (Or even an HTML presentation, using media="projection" ....

    AB: any other comments about tag:

    <arve> :)

    JS: it seems like it may actually work

    AB: please take a look at it Josh and submit comments

    MC: one potential issue is I18N related issues but they may be

    JK: like what Marcos?

    MC: IRI support may be problematic
    ... Tim from HP raised a related issue

    JK: I'll read up on it

    AB: everyone, please do followup on the mail list


    AB: any other business to discuss?

    BS: I wasn't able to upload the f2f data file

    MC: a hotel recommenation file would be helpful

    BS: that's what I've done but dont' have the right perms to upload
    it to the wiki

    AB: I'll resolve this issue
    ... Meeting Adjourned

Summary of Action Items

    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos add the tag: scheme to the scheme pros and cons
    document [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Marcos write an introduction for section 1. of the API
    and Events spec [recorded in
    [NEW] ACTION: Mark create an input regarding Window Mode
    requirements [recorded in

    [End of minutes]
      [32] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
Received on Thursday, 22 January 2009 17:27:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 27 October 2017 07:26:13 UTC